"proof that the christian god can't exist, debunked"

[Dywyddyr]

Intellectual dishonesty on your part I would say. As in dodging crucial question, and using tedious diversion tactics.

Wrong again: I have answered each of your questions, YOU were the one employing diversions.

I'm afraid this is yet another diversionary tactic, in what can only be an attempt to win by any means necessary.
It does not take a belief in God to see through this concept, one only has to read and have basic understanding of a scripture.

And is not a belief in god equated to a belief that scripture is factual?

Actually when analysed the effort put into this debate by yourself, as to be based on "God does not exist...." simply because you are applying limited human abilities to a Supreme Being.

Then if that was your answer (i.e. no chance whatsoever of conceding any validity to the argument) I repeat my earlier question: why did bother getting involved?

It is a paradox, but not as it is intended which is why I refer to it as
a "so-called" paradox.
It is a paradox if God is, as the atheist view Him, being convinced they can strengthen the ideal, God does not exist, or if He does, He is not as great
as He is made out to be.
They also refer to God as murder, mysonogy, and anything that paints a completely negative picture, because they believe this strengthens their cause.
Otherwise they play the "where is the evidence of His existence card"

In other words you cannot, in fact, address the logic or the argument with anything other than "god exists and you're an atheist".

Intellectual dishonesty?
Don't talk to me about intellectual dishonesty.

Such as engaging in a discussion which you have no intention of participating in other than to re-iterate the claim that "god does exist, regardless of anything that is said"??

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

And is not a belief in god equated to a belief that scripture is factual?

You see, this is your state of mind.
The answer to your question is no.
Take a look at my response to scifes.

Then if that was your answer (i.e. no chance whatsoever of conceding any validity to the argument) I repeat my earlier question: why did bother getting involved?

Again, please take your atheist hat off.
That is the basic definition of God;
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=God

I am merely applying the logic to that particular phenomenon.
Belief is not a requirement.
You on the other hand deny the basic definition of God. Why?

In other words you cannot, in fact, address the logic or the argument with anything other than "god exists and you're an atheist".

You are indeed refering to yourself with this analasys (with the relative oposites)
Another characteristics of some atheists who adhere to atheism.

Such as engaging in a discussion which you have no intention of participating in other than to re-iterate the claim that "god does exist, regardless of anything that is said"??

I have avoided using the "liar" word, because it could easily be construed as
a personal attack. But with all due respect, "if the cap fits..."

Please prove me wrong and I will gladly retract (and this is a genuine request).

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You see, this is your state of mind.
The answer to your question is no.
Take a look at my response to scifes.

You mean the one about predestination?
Which was claimed by me and wiggled out of by you... As you're wiggling now. The thread is about god, not scripture. The discussion is about god, not scripture. Your "defence" has referred to god, not scripture.
BTW why would the scriptures be regarded as factual if they didn't come from god?

Again, please take your atheist hat off.
That is the basic definition of God;
You on the other hand deny the basic definition of God. Why?

Wrong again: if you had at all bothered to read the thread (and Cris's first thread) the whole argument is about the incompatibilities of the attributes as claimed. They are (or at least one particular aspect is) exactly what we are are talking about.

I am merely applying the logic to that particular phenomenon.
Belief is not a requirement.

Wrong again: your own words - "It does not take a belief in God to see through this concept, one only has to read and have basic understanding of a scripture". So rather than use logic you want to call on scripture (which does require belief [in its "truth"], otherwise it's no more valid than Winnie the Pooh as a reference).

I have avoided using the "liar" word, because it could easily be construed as a personal attack. But with all due respect, "if the cap fits..."
Please prove me wrong and I will gladly retract (and this is a genuine request).

Okay: show where I have attempted to divert the topic. Show where I have dodged a question.
And then I will point out (again) where you are the one that has done so on numerous occasions, and the hat can be yours.

 

[scifes]

scifes,



Why?

jan.

cuz he does it in his movie..

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Answer the question: if god knows you're going to pick A how can you pick B?

I've had a few days to ponder this one. I hope you don't mind me asking a couple questions, just so I get things straight.

If God or some other outside agency knows every choice someone will make then is it really necessary to declare that person's life as predetermined? I mean God shouldn't really have to predestine you, just setting you adrift should suffice.

Does this mean that if by having an omniscient God then it automatically labels you predestined by default?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Does this mean that if by having an omniscient God then it automatically labels you predestined by default?

That's essentially my position. Knowledge of the future, must, of necessity, mean that the future is fixed. Because knowledge means that something is true.
Therefore if someone knows what you will do you must do it: i.e. it is true that you will.
I think the quibble is over the word "pre-determined", if the future is fixed it doesn't necessarily mean that it was "intended" or "forced" to be that way, it could simply be that the initial conditions were such that no other outcomes are possible.

As an analogy*, if you drop a hammer what is "forcing it" or "dictating" that it will hit the ground? Gravity, because that's how things work: it doesn't mean that there is an intelligence ensuring that the hammer can't not land, just that, because of everything being the way it is, gravity, hammers having mass etc. there aren't any options for the hammer.

* And yes, I'm aware that an eagle could swoop in at the last second and stop it, but you get what I mean

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

You mean the one about predestination?

Yep.

Which was claimed by me and wiggled out of by you... As you're wiggling now.

Wiggle? LOL!.
Theres's nothing to wiggle out of.

The thread is about god, not scripture.
The discussion is about god, not scripture.
Your "defence" has referred to god, not scripture.

The first two points beg the question; How is possible to refer
to God and not scripture, even if scripture isn't mentioned.
As far as the third point; how do you know?

BTW why would the scriptures be regarded as factual if they didn't come from god?

How do you know they didn't come from God?
Please don't answer this question by asking a question.

Wrong again: if you had at all bothered to read the thread (and Cris's first thread) the whole argument is about the incompatibilities of the attributes as claimed. They are (or at least one particular aspect is) exactly what we are are talking about.

Why don't you give a straight answer to a straight question for a change? :runaway: Pleeeeeeez?

Wrong again: your own words - "It does not take a belief in God to see through this concept, one only has to read and have basic understanding of a scripture". So rather than use logic you want to call on scripture (which does require belief [in its "truth"], otherwise it's no more valid than Winnie the Pooh as a reference).

Validity of the scripture is not required to defeat the concept, as from yours
or Cris's perspective, God, and therefore His omniscience, is not based in
reality, so is not valid.

Okay: show where I have attempted to divert the topic. Show where I have dodged a question.

For a start, you (all of a sudden) accuse me arguing from the point of view that "God does exist".

jan.

 

[wynn]

That's essentially my position. Knowledge of the future, must, of necessity, mean that the future is fixed. Because knowledge means that something is true.
Therefore if someone knows what you will do you must do it: i.e. it is true that you will.

But so what?

God's omniscience and our predetermination would be problems only if we posit that we have only this one lifetime in which we have to make the right decision as far as God is concerned, or we will end up in hell for all eternity, with no chance of redemption.

But why should we posit such?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

That's essentially my position. Knowledge of the future, must, of necessity, mean that the future is fixed.

Not at all.
It can be calculated by an agency not connected to
to the process of time, who is endowed with perfect omniscience.
Omniscience in this case means "knowing all there is to know".

Because knowledge means that something is true.

Not necessarily.
Knowledge is also the process used to arrive at the truth.
To discriminate perfectly, we need knowledge from both ends of the spectrum.

As an analogy*, if you drop a hammer what is "forcing it" or "dictating" that it will hit the ground? Gravity, because that's how things work: it doesn't mean that there is an intelligence ensuring that the hammer can't not land, just that, because of everything being the way it is, gravity, hammers having mass etc. there aren't any options for the hammer.

Without knowledge of gravity, or knowledge of the experience of gravity, someone would be seen as a god if he could predict successfully the outcome of the dropped hammer.
He could well be accused of fixing the outcome.

jan.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

If God or some other outside agency knows every choice someone will make then is it really necessary to declare that person's life as predetermined?

Does this mean that if by having an omniscient God then it automatically labels you predestined by default?

Yes... the creations of an omniscient creator are by default pre-destined.!!!

The thred is "proof that the christian god can't exist, debunked".!!!

Christan God has free-will an is all-powerful an all-knowin... he coud have created Adam an Eve any way he wanted... he chose to create them an ther surroundins in such a way that Adam an Eve woud sin... Adam an Eve had no choise... they was pre-destined to sin... an the sam holds true for all the decendents of Adam an Eve.!!!

Christan-God can not be "fare an just... an good/lovin/mercyful" an also dole out eternal punishment to people who he created in such a way that they had no choise but to sin... ie... this "proof" that the Christan God cannot esist has not been debunked.!!!

Is ther any part of that you dont agree wit.???

 

[cluelusshusbund]

But so what?

God's omniscience and our predetermination would be problems only if we posit that we have only this one lifetime in which we have to make the right decision as far as God is concerned, or we will end up in hell for all eternity, with no chance of redemption.

But why should we posit such?

Not that it woud make any diference to the argument... but what does the Christan Bible posit other than "one life to live".???

 

[sifreak21]

Dywyddyr,



Yep.



Wiggle? LOL!.
Theres's nothing to wiggle out of.



The first two points beg the question; How is possible to refer
to God and not scripture, even if scripture isn't mentioned.
As far as the third point; how do you know?



How do you know they didn't come from God?
Please don't answer this question by asking a question.



Why don't you give a straight answer to a straight question for a change? :runaway: Pleeeeeeez?



Validity of the scripture is not required to defeat the concept, as from yours
or Cris's perspective, God, and therefore His omniscience, is not based in
reality, so is not valid.



For a start, you (all of a sudden) accuse me arguing from the point of view that "God does exist".

jan.

OHH OHH i can answer the "how do you KNOW it didnt come from god"

there is ABSOLUTLY no proof of it, no proof he did no proof he didnt.. and the biggest no proof god actually exsists, besides "faith" all the athiests want you thiest to do, is present irefutable proof that good exsists, which you nor anyone else can do so untill then all theists are fighting a losing battle with no facts.. where the athiests can contridict anything you put up from the bible

 

[Jan Ardena]

sifreak21,

OHH OHH i can answer the "how do you KNOW it didnt come from god"

there is ABSOLUTLY no proof of it, no proof he did no proof he didnt..

Then the question remains; How do you KNOW?

so untill then all theists are fighting a losing battle with no facts.. where the athiests can contridict anything you put up from the bible

As theists are under no obligation to prove their belief in God, and the atheist under no obligation to prove the opposite;

Where or what is the battle you speak of? :shrug:

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yep.

And that question was answered TWICE by me.

Wiggle? LOL!.
Theres's nothing to wiggle out of.

Wrong again. You reverse position when you do give an answer.

The first two points beg the question; How is possible to refer
to God and not scripture, even if scripture isn't mentioned.

What?

As far as the third point; how do you know?

It's quite simple: I read your posts where you use the word "god".

How do you know they didn't come from God?
Please don't answer this question by asking a question.

More wiggling on your part: I don't know. But your earlier statement was "I don't need to refer to god, I just use scripture" and when I point out taking scripture as fact implies god... You're back to YOU bringing god into it.

Why don't you give a straight answer to a straight question for a change? :runaway: Pleeeeeeez?

Another diversion from you: you claim I wasn't addressing the attributes of god and when I show that I was you give the above reply...

Validity of the scripture is not required to defeat the concept

So why did YOU bring them into the conversation? Especially with the words "one only has to read and have basic understanding of a scripture" more dishonesty on your part.

For a start, you (all of a sudden) accuse me arguing from the point of view that "God does exist".

Which you used as "an answer" more than once. "God has no limits" for example.

Not at all.
It can be calculated by an agency not connected to the process of time, who is endowed with perfect omniscience.
Omniscience in this case means "knowing all there is to know".

Wrong again. If it can be calculated infallibly what WILL happen then the we're back to the same thing: the future is fixed. If it is known infallibly then again the future is fixed.

Not necessarily.
Knowledge is also the process used to arrive at the truth.
To discriminate perfectly, we need knowledge from both ends of the spectrum.

We've been through this: knowledge is NOT the process, knowledge is the result of the process of learning.

Without knowledge of gravity, or knowledge of the experience of gravity, someone would be seen as a god if he could predict successfully the outcome of the dropped hammer.
He could well be accused of fixing the outcome.

Strawman: I have just shown that "fixing" isn't required.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The basic definition of 'God' is "Supreme Being".
This is the claim made by the majority of theists throughout the
world, throughout history.
The question is; why do you deny that?
Do you deny it because you don't believe it?
Do you deny it because it's not true?
Please give a straight answer.

Validity of the scripture is not required to defeat the concept

Dywyddyr,

So why did YOU bring them into the conversation? Especially with the words
"one only has to read and have basic understanding of a scripture" more

I already explained;

....as from yours
or Cris's perspective, God, and therefore His omniscience, is not based in
reality, so is not valid.

Apart from that your perspectives cannot be valid, as there is no process of
validation.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The basic definition of 'God' is "Supreme Being".
This is the claim made by the majority of theists throughout the world, throughout history.
The question is; why do you deny that?
Do you deny it because you don't believe it?
Do you deny it because it's not true?

In other words, contrary to the claim you have made many times you are not addressing the logic itself. You are, as I have stated more than once, claiming, effectively, "it doesn't apply in this case".
And again, as stated, (and which you skirted calling me a liar for): you are still "engaging in a discussion which you have no intention of participating in other than to re-iterate the claim that "god does exist, regardless of anything that is said"".

Apart from that your perspectives cannot be valid, as there is no process of validation.

QED: you claim my perspective cannot be validated (where is YOUR validation for claims of god?) yet my perspective is from the logic as presented, only.

Goodbye.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

All this talk of omniscient predeterminers has me thinking God and Satan are, by default, the same entity? To knowingly create evil incarnate then knowingly provide it with a destiny makes God somewhat culpable, don't you think? I like it.

If man has created God then it is we who predetermine God's omniscience. If we did not then we cannot predetermine God's destiny with accuracy. We do not possess the omniscience to even declare God 100% omniscient for that matter.

Unfortunately we are relegated to believing in a God that has this remarkable attribute. Belief in something and knowledge of your belief are 2 different things. If you believe in a God then you have no other choice but to admit His omniscience is unknowable.

How can a belief truly predetermine anything? There is no point in discussing a belief to gain knowledge of it. Talk of whether a omniscient God can predestine & predetermine is philosophical trench warfare and will yield no winner.

 

[Jan Ardena]

PsychoticEpisode,

All this talk of omniscient predeterminers has me thinking God and Satan are, by default, the same entity? To knowingly create evil incarnate then knowingly provide it with a destiny makes God somewhat culpable, don't you think? I like it.

What would it take to convince you that omniscience and free will
could co-exist?

Unfortunately we are relegated to believing in a God that has this remarkable attribute. Belief in something and knowledge of your belief are 2 different things. If you believe in a God then you have no other choice but to admit His omniscience is unknowable.

Omniscience is not really a problem to believers.
It is more of a self-inflicted thorn in the side of active un-beleivers.


jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Omniscience is not really a problem to believers.

Correct, because they employ double think and ignore (or gloss over) the corollaries.

 

[wynn]

As theists are under no obligation to prove their belief in God, and the atheist under no obligation to prove the opposite;

This is an interesting approach, to say the least!

But how do you avoid the other extreme, namely that which is practically solipsism (ie. the conviction that one's own views about everything (including scriptural statements) are correct above all others)?